<p>Just in case some of you have not seen this, here is a link to what I think is a wonderful Atlantic Monthly article about college admissions:</p>
<p>Crying</a> in the Kitchen Over Princeton</p>
<p>I saw that, elsewhere on this thread, someone posted another Atlantic Monthly article written by a college counselor at a prep school. It's a great article, but in my opinion, this one is even more worthwhile.</p>
<p>I remember reading the article itself years ago when it first was published. I was poking around in the Atlantic archives to find it, thanks SO much for digging it up! Like an impressionable baby chick, I imprinted on Easterbrook's comments about how the important thing is that you go to college, not where you go to college.</p>
<p>"It's Not Where You Start. It's Where You Finsh."</p>
<p>The idea that Harvey Mudd, Rice, or Georgia Tech are "second-tier" schools (as stated in the first part of the article) seems like an odd view in itself, especially for an article that's trying to discourage students from going for just big names.</p>
<p>I do think that where you go to college makes a big difference in your life, but it's not as simple as "Yale = good, State U = bad". A different college means a different experience, and different experiences move your life in different ways, expose you to different options. My life would likely have been very different had I gone to a different college. Not necessarily worse, but certainly different. It IS to a certain extent about where you were educated and not just the fact that you were educated, just not quite in the way that people assume.</p>
<p>I also think that of those 200 colleges where you can supposedly get a great education, I would have been unhappy at quite a lot of them. However, I would certainly have been happy at a decent number.</p>
<p>The snobbiness of the article (suggesting there are 100-200 good schools) actually lends credibility to the notion that one should go for the biggest "name" school.</p>
<p>The use of statistics ("only half the people went to Ivies...") is intellectually dishonest.</p>
<p>Yeah, I thought the 100 or EVEN 200 was ridiculous. Most of the guides I read covered 300 plus and obviously there are hundreds and hundreds of really good ones not in those books where one could get a great education.</p>
<p>But the idea of not crying over Princeton is a good one. Even here on CC where I feel most parents (and a few students) are pretty rational on this issue, I still see people saying things like, "Of course, anyone would be happy with HYP." None of those school, as excellent as they undoubtedly are, sounded to my son like a good fit. Would he have gotten a great education at any of them?--Sure. But he believes the academics are as good and the social fit is much better for him at his small LAC.</p>
<p>I am totally devastated I go to one of the best engineering schools in the country.</p>
<p><em>Crying in the Dorm Room over Harvey Mudd</em></p>
<p>people are so delusional when they believe right college="success for life".</p>
<p>From my experiences so far- that is such a fat stinking lie, lol. It doesn't necessarily even mean "success right after college".</p>
<p>I couldn't read past the part about Mudd. An education writer who doesn't know what Harvey Mudd is about is a dolt!</p>
<p>Harvard doesn't want us to know about this, while Ohio Wesleyan does. If I were in charge of admissions at Ohio Wesleyan, I would hand out copies of this article at information sessions.</p>
<p>Yeah, while the point of the article has a lot of merit, I think the writer could have used better examples, comparisons, and supporting data.</p>
<p>The introduction to the Article (an interview with Gregg Easterbrook) was written by Sage Stossel. She's the one who called Harvey Mudd and Rice "second tier." Presumably she was trying to be ironic or speaking in the voice of the "devastated" 17-year old Princeton wannabe. If not, as others have said, it sort of defeats the whole point. Oh, and don't you think, given the topic, the little bio note at the bottom might have pointed out that Stossel went to Harvard? The</a> Atlantic Online | Sage Stossel Biography</p>
<p>As for Easterbrook, his bio did note that he went to Colorado College. He's not one of my favorites: Media</a> Matters - Easterbrook baselessly accused Gore film of lacking "factual precision," ignored his own record of twisting facts on global warming</p>
<p>I agree that some of the statements in the article are a little specious. But the overall idea -- that there are amazing, bright, talented and wonderful kids on every college campus in the country and if you gathered them in one room you would be hard pressed to tell who goes to HYP, etc. unless they told you -- is a good one to keep in mind. Many of us went to what the author would consider second- or third-tier schools and are doing just fine, thank you. Despite the article's flaws, that's a message that we need to get across to our brand-name-obsessed kids (and to the brand-name obsessed parents out there.) I feel terrible for kids who worry that if they don't make it into the "first tier" schools, they are letting their parents down and their lives won't be as rich or rewarding as they would have been had they matriculated at, say, Princeton. That's just nonsense.</p>
<p>Jessie: I think it the solidity of the student's identity before college has something to do with how influential the school will be.</p>
<p>My own kids are just becoming more themselves at their schools. The fact that each school seems to resemble each child so much leads me to believe that they are turning their college experience into themselves and not the other way around, as strange as that may sound.</p>